Someone on this forum, one of the libertarians--I apologize for not remembering who, it was probably Ragnar--said something to the effect that a parent had no responsibility to care for a child, or at least to care for a child once it was capable of feeding itself.

In the case that libertarian remembers their statement and continues to stand by it, what are your thoughts on this?

Child abuse? Responsibility? Did the government have the right to intervene? Does anyone have the right to intervene in that case? Were the abusive parent's parental rights still valid, in the case of the adoption? Does someone have the right to adopt a child against their will and care for them? What about in this case?

Other libertarians, and non-libertarians, feel free to answer.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

At 1/30/2011 5:07:05 PM, HatedeatH wrote:It probably was Ragnar, but he's an objectivist I think. They're pretty much their own breed. :-)

I'm not libertarian and I believe that in any and all cases of child abuse the government does have a right to intervene. Children are much more vulnerable so are subject to special rights.

This

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

At 1/30/2011 5:07:05 PM, HatedeatH wrote:It probably was Ragnar, but he's an objectivist I think. They're pretty much their own breed. :-)

I'm not libertarian and I believe that in any and all cases of child abuse the government does have a right to intervene. Children are much more vulnerable so are subject to special rights.

Special rights is an interesting way of putting it. I do personally agree that once a child is a conscious being, they do have "special rights" to protection from the community--whether the community is anarchist, state-run, etc.

Though I think the system for "protecting" children that is in place right now is shoddy as hell--from personal experience watching two friends go through it and from a lecture by a journalist who's investigated and reported on the system for years, etc--so don't get me wrong. In fact in that article it's only when you get to the end that it goes in depth and talks about how there were so many reports in about the situation this girl was in, and nothing was ever done.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

Damn not being able to edit. By "protection from the community" I mean community-provided protection.

Really, arguing against there being zero responsibility for anyone is rather senseless, it's the entire reason the human species has been able to get to where it is--longer care of children means more time for brain growth.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

The right to not have to care for the child doesn't mean the right to neglect or abuse it. If someone else is willing to care for the child, the parent can't or won't, then they can take it and care for it. I wouldn't say the government has or doesn't have a right to intervene; it's more that anyone has a right to intervene in a case like this.

Obviously, libertarianism has no perfect answer to this problem--but neither does anything else, as there's no such thing as utopia. But there are strong reasons to believe that there would be far less child abuse in a free society (http://www.cato.org... is a good article on the subject).

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

The Government has no place to intervene to protect the imaginary 'rights' of children. Until someone gets a job and starts paying taxes they are parasites, how someone treats their own parasites is their concern.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

One concern I have about children in an An-cap/libertarian society is that they would likely be more inclined to get into drugs and alcohol at a younger age since there would be no laws barring them access. Those things are only fine once you reach a certain age, like 16 or 17. I have heard of children as young as 11 or 12 going out and drinking. That happens to be my brother's age and it horrifys me to know that there's children his age already going down a path that could potentially destroy their lives if they're not careful.

vardas0antras: If Muhammad is great then why didn't he stop 911 ?
gavin.ogden: He was too busy starting it.

At 1/30/2011 5:24:10 PM, HatedeatH wrote:One concern I have about children in an An-cap/libertarian society is that they would likely be more inclined to get into drugs and alcohol at a younger age since there would be no laws barring them access. Those things are only fine once you reach a certain age, like 16 or 17. I have heard of children as young as 11 or 12 going out and drinking. That happens to be my brother's age and it horrifys me to know that there's children his age already going down a path that could potentially destroy their lives if they're not careful.

In a society where there is no age limit of alchohol one might expect that after a generation or so the culture would develop, and that people would generally develop a good sense of their limits. If there is nothing special about alcohol people are less likely to binge.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 1/30/2011 5:18:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:The right to not have to care for the child doesn't mean the right to neglect or abuse it. If someone else is willing to care for the child, the parent can't or won't, then they can take it and care for it. I wouldn't say the government has or doesn't have a right to intervene; it's more that anyone has a right to intervene in a case like this.

Obviously, libertarianism has no perfect answer to this problem--but neither does anything else, as there's no such thing as utopia. But there are strong reasons to believe that there would be far less child abuse in a free society (http://www.cato.org... is a good article on the subject).

Fair enough, a consistent and reasonable answer. Would you say there is a responsibility to intervene, on anyone's part?

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

At 1/30/2011 5:18:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:The right to not have to care for the child doesn't mean the right to neglect or abuse it. If someone else is willing to care for the child, the parent can't or won't, then they can take it and care for it. I wouldn't say the government has or doesn't have a right to intervene; it's more that anyone has a right to intervene in a case like this.

Obviously, libertarianism has no perfect answer to this problem--but neither does anything else, as there's no such thing as utopia. But there are strong reasons to believe that there would be far less child abuse in a free society (http://www.cato.org... is a good article on the subject).

Fair enough, a consistent and reasonable answer. Would you say there is a responsibility to intervene, on anyone's part?

I personally think that there is a responsibility to intervene in cases of child abuse. If you're asking about whether or not libertarianism says so, then that's different. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, it deals with the law, or what the law ought to be. The question "Should I intervene to stop child abuse?" is outside the scope of political philosophy. The only question relevant to libertarianism would be, "Is there a legal right to initiate force against someone who chooses not to intervene in a case of child abuse?", and the answer is no.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 1/30/2011 5:18:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:The right to not have to care for the child doesn't mean the right to neglect or abuse it. If someone else is willing to care for the child, the parent can't or won't, then they can take it and care for it. I wouldn't say the government has or doesn't have a right to intervene; it's more that anyone has a right to intervene in a case like this.

Obviously, libertarianism has no perfect answer to this problem--but neither does anything else, as there's no such thing as utopia. But there are strong reasons to believe that there would be far less child abuse in a free society (http://www.cato.org... is a good article on the subject).

Fair enough, a consistent and reasonable answer. Would you say there is a responsibility to intervene, on anyone's part?

I personally think that there is a responsibility to intervene in cases of child abuse. If you're asking about whether or not libertarianism says so, then that's different. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, it deals with the law, or what the law ought to be. The question "Should I intervene to stop child abuse?" is outside the scope of political philosophy. The only question relevant to libertarianism would be, "Is there a legal right to initiate force against someone who chooses not to intervene in a case of child abuse?", and the answer is no.

Fair enough. Thanks for your honesty and being reasonable, even if I disagree with the philosophy itself--it was refreshing to hear something other than moral gymnastics (or worse, denial of morality) from a libertarian.

I'll read the article you linked, as well.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

At 1/30/2011 5:03:13 PM, Yvette wrote:Someone on this forum, one of the libertarians--I apologize for not remembering who, it was probably Ragnar--said something to the effect that a parent had no responsibility to care for a child, or at least to care for a child once it was capable of feeding itself.

In the case that libertarian remembers their statement and continues to stand by it, what are your thoughts on this?

Child abuse? Responsibility? Did the government have the right to intervene? Does anyone have the right to intervene in that case? Were the abusive parent's parental rights still valid, in the case of the adoption? Does someone have the right to adopt a child against their will and care for them? What about in this case?

Other libertarians, and non-libertarians, feel free to answer.:

Child abuse falls within a perfectly acceptable role for the government because it's primary role is to protect citizens against force and violence. It's why we have police, after all, so I don't see why any libertarian would have a problem with it on a fundamental level.

Limited government =/= no government.

Now, there are cases where the government makes poor decisions and violates the rights of parents who don't deserve to lose their children. But that has to be viewed on a case by case basis.

At 1/30/2011 5:24:10 PM, HatedeatH wrote:One concern I have about children in an An-cap/libertarian society is that they would likely be more inclined to get into drugs and alcohol at a younger age since there would be no laws barring them access. Those things are only fine once you reach a certain age, like 16 or 17. I have heard of children as young as 11 or 12 going out and drinking. That happens to be my brother's age and it horrifys me to know that there's children his age already going down a path that could potentially destroy their lives if they're not careful.

In a society where there is no age limit of alchohol one might expect that after a generation or so the culture would develop, and that people would generally develop a good sense of their limits. If there is nothing special about alcohol people are less likely to binge.

Actually the less limits there are, force limits, the more likely people will make good choices rather than experiment.Almond Joys are legal to eat.I have no interest in trying them, never had one in my life.Now I'm a bit curious about weed cause its illegal and there are mixed reviews, generally positive but those are shut out by the state's overwhelming negative image.

Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave

At 1/30/2011 5:18:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:The right to not have to care for the child doesn't mean the right to neglect or abuse it. If someone else is willing to care for the child, the parent can't or won't, then they can take it and care for it. I wouldn't say the government has or doesn't have a right to intervene; it's more that anyone has a right to intervene in a case like this.

Obviously, libertarianism has no perfect answer to this problem--but neither does anything else, as there's no such thing as utopia. But there are strong reasons to believe that there would be far less child abuse in a free society (http://www.cato.org... is a good article on the subject).

Can you outline the rationale behind why this would be? I don't want to read through that whole paper.

At 1/30/2011 5:03:13 PM, Yvette wrote:Someone on this forum, one of the libertarians--I apologize for not remembering who, it was probably Ragnar--said something to the effect that a parent had no responsibility to care for a child, or at least to care for a child once it was capable of feeding itself. '

No responsibility. Nor abuse. Had there been some sort of contractual responsibility or something it's "neglect."

Did the government have the right to intervene?

If it's a tax free government it has the right to offer the girl something better, as a form of PR or whatever. No one has the right to spend tax money, nor to intervene in a manner the girl makes clear her disapproval of, nor to punish the parents unless they were doing something (not failing to do something, taking a positive action) the girl disapproved of and refusing her the option of exiting the house to avoid it.

Were the abusive parent's parental rights still valid

"Parental rights?" I believe in no such things.

Does someone have the right to adopt a child against their will and care for them?

the child's will or the parent's will?Either way you should be able to derive the answer from the way I phrased that question. :)

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

"Child abuse is the physical, sexual, emotional mistreatment, or neglect of children."

I could define every word in my post, if you like Cody, I understand if you'd need some semantic wiggle room. ;)

Depends what you mean by neglect. If you refuse to feed your child, but let him or her leave the house, it isn't abuse. If you refuse to feed your child, but also lock him/her in the basement, it's abuse.